Re: [council] ccNSO Council report

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the update, John.  Did the ccNSO have any other comments about the 
composition of the proposed "Steering Committee"?

During a call yesterday with ICANN Staff, I noted that allocating 2 reps from 
the GNSO was not adequate, and that the selection process must be open, 
transparent, predictable, etc.  My concern is that ICANN will "pick its jury" 
in a top-down fashion,  with the goal of steering the outcome.

Thanks-

J.


From: "john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2014 at 7:58
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] ccNSO Council report

All,

Today's ccNSO Council meeting, plagued by lack of quorum, had a decided 
Internet governance focus.  In fact, the Council recently launched a quite 
useful resource page on the subject: 
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/igrg.htm

The IANA transition also drew attention.  It is hoped that the steering 
committee structure planned by ICANN can be expanded to allow for two specific 
representatives from the ccNSO and gTLD registry stakeholder group, selected by 
the groups themselves.  The point is that the ccNSO feels it is an "affected 
party" and should have specific input.

Cheers,

Berard